The North American Union and the End of Democracy in Canada

[pisshead]

The North American Union and the End of Democracy in Canada
Kevin Parkinson
Global Research (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=6539)
Tuesday Aug 14, 2007
Unfortunately, democratic rights in Canada are quickly becoming an illusion. In a sinister plot being carried out underneath our noses, the Canadian government has been working collectively with Mexico and the United States to create the conditions for a merger into a North American Union (NAU). To date, there has been absolutely no public participation concerning this merger.
The plot will thicken even more on August 20-21 when George Bush and Felipe Calderon, the presidents of the United States and Mexico, meet Stephen Harper at the Fairmont Hotel in Montebello, Quebec. Further planning and analysis of the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), an informal agreement signed by the leaders of the three countries in 2005, will command center stage.

If Canadians understood the substance of the SPP they would be appalled since it is a direct threat to the existence of Canada as a sovereign country. Internal SPP documents released under FOI requests have shown that U.S. administrative law is being written in stealth to â??integrateâ?� and â??harmonizeâ?� 100â??s of regulations in Canada and Mexico.
As Dr. Jerome Corsi has pointed out in â??The Late Great U.S.A.â?�, the European Union is being used as a model for the NAU. The European Union was created incrementally over a 40 year period with public disclosure, but the North American Union have been placed on an incredible 5 year timetable with no public disclosure!
Government leaders, the corporate elite and senior bureaucrats have been meeting secretly for the past 2 years to â??fast trackâ?� the eventual rollout of the NAU by 2010.
The big question is: why hasnâ??t the Canadian government used the parliamentary process and the media to inform its citizens regarding the looming NAU?
You are forced to conclude that the mainstream media is guilty of collusion with government and corporate executives and has failed to report the context of the NAU and the implications for the future of Canada.
Essentially, the SPP lead up to the NAU is the sequel to the Free Trade Agreement and we all remember the Mulroney promises of 1989. We were to have more jobs, more prosperity, more investment and the middle class and the working class would benefit, right? Wrong. Many of the jobs and companies went south, unemployment rose, Canadian companies suffered takeovers, but the political pundits keep talking about the increased wealth in North America.
Yes, itâ??s true that there has been a huge increase in the number of millionaires and billionaires in North America today but what about the rest of us? The multinational corporations have done just fine, and now they are the ones who will be sitting down at conference tables in Montebello with presidents and a prime minister- changing the rules to suit themselves while no media or citizensâ?? groups will be allowed to observe or participate!
If you doubt this scenario will occur on August 20, I remind you that there was a blackout on media coverage at a previous SPP conference, in Banff, Alberta from September 12-14, 2006 after which Stockwell Day, Minister of Public Safety refused to answer any questions regarding the conference in the foyer of the House of Commons. Apparently, that conference in Banff was so secretive that the Canadian public did not have the right to learn about it.
A full discussion of the SPP is beyond the scope of this article but it is important to remember that the next decade will be all about â??deregulation.â?� It will mean that the protections of government on which we have come to rely, will vanish into thin air. Future generations, our children and grandchildren, will ask us why we fell asleep at the switch and failed to hold our governments accountable.
The United States will become our model. Privatization and deregulation of: health care and drug safety, road construction and transportation, environmental, energy, forestry and agriculture regulations are just a few of the areas where government will abdicate its constitutional responsibility to us.
Once the corporations and government carry out this fascist coup dâ??etat, we can predict the results- increased prices, decreased wages and a gaping hole in our social safety net like we never imagined. It will bring an end to the middle class in Canada and bring about a huge increase in the ranks of the working poor. It will lead to a â??Walmartizationâ?� of the economy.
Maude Barlow, in her recent book, â??Too Close for Comfortâ?� presents all of the frightening details of â??Canadaâ??s future within Fortress North America.â?�
To add insult to injury, the planners of the Montebello conference, according to Connie Fogal of the Canadian Action Party, have affirmed that U.S. troops will be coordinating security arrangements at Montebello, which include a $1 million fence to keep the expected 10,000 protesters 25 kilometers away from the secretive meeting of three so-called democracies.
George Orwell once said:

â??If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face- forever.â?�
The boot of the North American Union is only 3 years from our face right now and we need to put tremendous pressure on our Canadian government to unveil its intentions, reveal its secrets and come clean.

[pisshead]

Defeating The North American Union Monster Dana Gabriel
Stop Lying (http://stoplying.ca/articles/07/aug/081307danadefeating.php)
Tuesday Aug 14, 2007
We live in a world where corporate interests and rights come before our own. The push for amnesty, open borders, and more government managed trade agreements are all part of globalization. Although this agenda is very unpopular and it appears that it has stalled, don't think for a second that the global elite won't still try and carry forward with it. Our sovereignty is being abolished in the name of globalization, and it will effect everyone, most in a negative way. The plan to integrate the U.S., Canada, and Mexico into a North American Union continues without any oversight or mandate from the people. As we double our efforts to expose this destructive agenda, so do those you wish to keep this under wraps and dismiss it as some crazy conspiracy theory. Many who claim it doesn't exist in the same breath say that if there were such a plan it would be beneficial to one and all. If the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP) of North America is such a good idea, why is it marred in secrecy? There is a concerted effort to stifle any debate or opposition that might further expose this process. Our leaders tell us to trust them, and that we have nothing to worry about even though they haven't been upfront with us. It's only for our own good, they claim. Even with the lack of transparency, knowledge, and general understanding on the part of many average citizens, there is a real sense of optimism that destructive agendas like the NAU monster can be defeated.

The NAU will define us as individuals, as a nation, and as a continent. It is up to all of us to get the word out. Many times in my articles I feel like I am preaching to the choir when it is those oblivious to the NAU that we must connect with. We all need to make a conscience effort to reach out to our family, friends, co-workers and others we meet in our everyday lives. Instead of talking about sports, the weather or Paris Hilton, we must draw attention to real issues such as the NAU that will affect our lives and those of the generations to come. The defeatist attitude that so many have is tiresome. They pose the question, â??what can I do, I am only one person.â?� It is precisely because of the actions of so many individuals that we have been so successful in the first place. We must believe that we can defeat the NAU if we are to achieve final victory.
Those who believe that a NAU is being created are called tinfoil hat-wearing conspiracy nuts and are often ridiculed in articles, in comment sections, and on message boards. Those trying to counter our claims are quick with name-calling but are short on facts. Many attempts at debunking the NAU are almost laughable if the reality wasn't that they were deceiving the dumbed down public. One such article referred to the members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) as eggheads, and the reports they publish as wonky papers only to be tossed aside and forgotten about. The author of this particular article is either very naive and misinformed, or is attempting to downplay the CFR's true influence. A report entitled, â??Building a North American Community,â?� which was published in May of 2005, is considered by many to be the blueprint for the SPP. The architects of such reports take what they do very seriously, and to casually and nonchalantly brush their work aside as irrelevant is simply irresponsible. It is true that some of their findings and recommendations are ahead of the curve and not yet ready for public consumption but later on many become policy. It is hard to deny the power and influence that the CFR wields. Since its inception in 1921, this shadow government has been hard at work, dismantling and destroying American sovereignty. There is little doubt that the CFR is one of the driving forces behind the NAU and the creation of a one-world government.
We need to further engage the NAU monster, and although we are not fighting this battle on an even playing field, our victories continue. Recently, amendments were passed that would prohibit any funds appropriated by the Transportation, Housing, Urban Development, and the Commerce Department from being used for U.S. participation in SPP working groups. Government task forces, committees, and those in the private sector, along with the SPP working groups, are the ones quietly harmonizing regulations, policies and laws. We are witnessing the transfer of power and the take over of our executive government. The key is that unelected bureaucrats are the ones implementing the NAU with little scrutiny, and once they start engaging in policy making they must be made accountable. Through the Canadian Access to Information Act, we now know that the upcoming SPP summit in Montebello, Quebec on August 20-21 will concentrate on five key issues. This includes Strengthening Competitiveness, which is to be the center piece of the summit. Also on the agenda is the Avian Pandemic Influenza, Emergency Management, Energy Security and Secure Borders. The whole SPP process is undemocratic and unconstitutional, and will lead to bigger government, more bureaucracy, and will further undermine our prosperity, security, and sovereignty.
Many are warning of possible violence which could erupt because of tightened security for the upcoming SPP summit, which will include a 25 km perimeter. Dissent is being outlawed and our government is becoming more tyrannical in nature everyday. Despite the fact that protesters will get nowhere near the actual meetings, it is still important to show up in large numbers and make a statement. On August 18, as a build up to the SPP summit, there will be a protest and rally held in Seattle. It is imperative that all protests remain peaceful and civil, as any violence will only play into the globalists hands and will further demonize those opposed to this agenda. This has happened at past anti-globalization demonstrations. We must be conscience of provocateurs and any individuals or groups behaving in such a manner must be looked upon as suspect and exposed as possible government agents. We are being conditioned to be good little slaves and accept world government. The glossy term globalization is being played-up as something that is inevitable that we need not resist but embrace. We need to defend, protect and preserve the little sovereignty we have left. Connie Fogal, leader of the Canadian Action Party, summed it up best when she stated, â??Let us join hands in peaceful right of protest, standing firm and tall, determined and strong in acknowledgment that our nations belong to us, the people; and that no shadow government, no military, no treacherous politicians or officials are going to take them away from us.â?�
One of our greatest obstacles remains waking up and motivating the dumbed-downed masses to take action. In hopes of gaining economic prosperity, some might welcome a NAU, but when most do become aware of this treasonous plan, the anger level will only rise. The global architects trying to implement this destructive agenda have the corporate-controlled media in their back pockets and every trick in the book will be used to achieve their goals, whether it be fear, deceit, or secrecy. By almost completely ignoring the NAU, the mainstream media has lost any credibility it might have had left. When it comes to pertinent issues of the day, I believe that there are five categories of people. Those in the know, those who are ignorant, those who are complacent, those shilling, and those intimately involved in the process. When we do defeat the North American Union monster, all the traitors will be exposed and tried accordingly.

[pisshead]

now it's globalist brown's turn to do what globalist blair couldn't get done...across the pond...

Brown turns his back on the people to embrace a corrupt EU treaty Simon Jenkins
London Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/simon_jenkins/article2241597.ece)
Monday Aug 13, 2007
The statement could not have been clearer. On ratifying a new European constitution, Labour said in its 2005 manifesto, â??We will put it to the British people in a referendum and campaign wholeheartedly for a yes vote.â?�
Tony Blair added: â??That is an issue of trust for me with the electorate.â?� Nor would there be any fudging over the abortive 2004 constitution rejected by the French and the Dutch. Blair said, â??You canâ??t have a . . . rejection of the treaty and then you just bring it back with a few amendments and say we will have another go.â?� Whatever emerged from any revision was for the people to approve. What could be clearer?
The answer is mud. No sooner was the government elected than Blair did exactly what he said he would not do. Facing a salvaged version of the 2004 constitution, he asserted that a referendum on it would be â??completely and utterly absurdâ?�. On taking office this year Gordon Brown agreed, despite his pledge to â??listen to the peopleâ?�. There cannot have been a more instant and brazen U-turn on an election promise in modern history.

Is there any case for this U-turn? There has been no war or national emergency and certainly no change of government. Yet Blair and Brown claimed three things of the new â??treatyâ?�, translated from the French into near incomprehensible English a week ago. They claimed it was no longer a constitution but a â??treatyâ?�, a difference that altered everything. They claimed they had negotiated â??opt-outsâ?� for Britain, which also altered everything at least as far as Britain was concerned. And they claimed the document was therefore of such triviality as no longer to be in need of popular consent other than by a whipped majority in parliament.
Since these arguments are now formal government policy they must be taken seriously. First, the change of name of the 277-page document is meaningless. Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, who presided over the negotiations last spring, admitted she was â??renamingâ?� the 2004 constitution only as a device to help Britain, France and others to squirm out of any referendum pledge.
A treaty sounds like a reversible deal between sovereign states, while a constitution sounds appropriate to sovereign state itself. Merkel was thus offering â??to use different terminology without changing the substance . . . to make the constitution a successâ?�. When asked what was different she jokingly referred to the dropping of mention of a European Union flag and of Beethovenâ??s anthem.
Valéry Giscard dâ??Estaing, shattered by Franceâ??s rejection of the constitution that he had crafted, saluted the new document as confirming all â??nine institutional advancesâ?� of the old one. The Irish government referred to the treaty as â??90%â?� of the old constitution. The Spanish government raised that to â??98%â?�. Open Europe, the think tank, calculated that of some 250 proposals only 10 had been altered. As Lord (Digby) Jones, the industry minister, stated (before his peerage), â??This is a con to call it a treaty: itâ??s exactly the same. Itâ??s a constitution.â?� Nothing could be clearer.
As for Britainâ??s proclaimed â??opt-outsâ?�, they are moot. It is true they are substantive, at least on law and order, cross-border justice and foreign policy. But similar opt-outs were being negotiated for Britain under the old constitution. The Swedish government even told its people, eager for similar easements, that our new opt-outs were really just â??clarificationsâ?� and would anyway be subject to oversight by the reinforced European courts, notably in matters of human rights.
Blairâ??s pretence that the â??newâ?� treaty was so diluted that a vote on it would be â??like holding a referendum on an open-plan officeâ?� was an insult to the publicâ??s intelligence. If the opt-outs were good enough for a referendum two years ago, surely they are today. What is sauce for the constitutional goose is sauce for the treaty gander.
There might have been some validity in the governmentâ??s third claim, that European treaties have never required referendums, had Blair not rejected it in 2005. New constitutional arrangements for Europe have not hitherto been subject to referendum, including Britainâ??s original entry in 1973, the Single European Act of 1986 or the Maastricht treaty of 1992. The only British referendum on Europe was under Labour in 1975 to confirm the Tory decision to sign the Treaty of Rome without a referendum.
Such historical allusions are beside the point. Europe has been moving towards a more accountable politics. The issue is a pledge and a trust. On Europe British politicians have been all over the shop. In the 1970s Margaret Thatcher campaigned for Europe. In the 1980s Blair declared that â??only Labourâ?� would have the guts to withdraw from it. In 2005 we had Blair and Brown promising a referendum as vital for a new 27-state Europe, and refusing one in 2007.
In 2004 Blair persuaded Jacques Chirac that the people of Europe should be asked their view on the decades in which power had leached from their national assemblies before agreeing to another massive transfer. What better climax to the leaderships of both men than a ringing popular confirmation of the project? In April 2004 Blair declared, â??Let the people have the final say . . . Let the issue be put, let battle be joined.â?�
Blair was right. The new constitution/treaty extends EU discipline into new areas of human rights, transport, law enforcement and social regulation. It creates a continent-wide â??legal spaceâ?� and another covering defence and foreign policy, albeit in embryo. It specifically enables future ministerial councils to extend Brusselsâ?? power and to alter veto rights without a need for new treaties. This centralist â??power creepâ?� can thus be rendered virtually self-validating.
In 1997 Blair signed the Maastricht social chapter (originally â??opted-outâ?� by John Major) because it was â??in the manifestoâ?�. Brown at the Treasury failed to implement most of it, much to the benefit of British labour market flexibility. This may now be subject to judicial challenge. An expanded concept of human rights is intended to see common standards of welfare benefits across the continent. As any student of European health and safety regulation knows, not a year passes without such intervention growing. The sole constraint imposed on the growth of this power has been popular, from the 2005 referendums.
For all these reasons public consent for any further extension of the collective power of the EU would be both prudent and democratic. What was true of past treaties is irrelevant. Brown claims to want to â??listen to the peopleâ?�. There could be no better time to listen than on the future governance of Britain.
Despite all these arguments, Brown appears to have run scared, fleeing democracy for the cover of oligarchy. The issue for Brown is not whether he promised a referendum, which as a member of Blairâ??s cabinet he did, but that he might not like the outcome. On present evidence he would probably but not certainly lose, but that need not be catastrophic. Losing a European referendum did not wreck those countries that had the courage to hold one in 2005. A British no would merely put us where France and Holland were then, in the vanguard of a demand for a new Europe to be properly accountable to its people.
This present spectacle was well described by Jose Manuel Barroso, the EU president, after the 2005 debacle, that the people of Europe be forced to â??go on voting [on the constitution] until they get it rightâ?�. A British (or other) rejection, which under the unanimity rule would trigger the collapse of the treaty, would be a riposte to Barroso and his like. It would tell them in turn to â??go on trying until they get it rightâ?�.
Any but the most ardent rejectionist accepts that a new European constitution is needed. A governmental structure designed for half a dozen states cannot handle 27. The requirements of global trade, global security and global humanity demand new institutions. But the past and present EU is largely unsuited to these requirements. It remains essentially a cartel of rich states, barricading their borders against world trade and protecting their commerce against internal and external competition. Its institutions are lethargic and corrupt, their accounts unauditable. The case for rejecting, not strengthening, them and â??trying againâ?� is overwhelming.
This is why Blair was right to cry â??Let battle commenceâ?� and why B